44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 29, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where that came from. I am not talking about more taxation. I am talking about less taxation. I am talking about promoting free enterprise. I am talking about promoting resource development. I am definitely talking about allowing the people in whose traditional lands these resources are developed to be able to participate economically. I believe that was the emphasis of my talk.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is well-meaning in his suggestions in terms of economic development, so I do not mean to suggest anything other than good intentions.
However, the reality of the Trans Mountain pipeline is that it is neither economical, nor are there markets, nor is there anything long term for any part of our population. I will say to him that in terms of the hearings that were held before the National Energy Board, the Kinder Morgan corporation put forward that it plans to create through its project fewer than 100 permanent jobs. It also put forward that it was going to be the 100% backstop for costs. The corporation then carved off its Canadian operations, kept the money it had raised towards building the pipeline and used it to pay off the debts of the parent corporation, at which point it told the federal government it was not going to build it. There is no case that it is economically viable.
Meanwhile there are many nations all along the pipeline route that want it stopped because it violates their rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I would just suggest to the member that the particular example he gave is rather fraught.
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there was a question in that, but I will attempt to respond to the hon. member's comments.
She and I have a difference of opinion on what resource development could do and what liquid natural gas could do for British Columbia and also for global climate challenges. We say to promote clean-burning, ethically produced liquid natural gas to replace much dirtier-burning coal. There is a market for it. That is clear if we take a look at what is going on in Europe today.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and represent the people from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, and today as I speak to Bill C-29 and the creation of a national council for reconciliation, I suggest to this place that this is a continuation of a journey that all Canadians are to be part of as we create a better future.
Speaking previously, in September, I made it clear that it was important to use a consensus-building approach to improve the legislation. Bill C-29, in its formation, deserved a responsible look at areas where it needed improvement, and I have to admit we have heard much testimony today that this was the work that was done at committee with the help of everybody there.
At second reading I pointed out a few issues that I thought needed to be addressed. I talked about the transparency and independence in the selection process of the board of directors. I talked about some words that seemed purposely vague to avoid accountability. I talked about the lack of any measurable outcomes. I talked about the fact that it took over three years to bring the bill to the House in the first place. Finally, I spoke about how the Prime Minister should be the one responding to the council's annual report, as that was the direction in call to action number 56.
In response to those concerns and the testimony of witnesses, we brought forward reasonable amendments to strengthen Bill C-29, and I am very proud today to report that 17 of the 19 amendments we put forward were passed at committee. It is the job of the official opposition to improve legislation and to make it truly representative of all voices, and that is exactly what we did at that committee.
I must admit, however, that I am a bit disappointed today to realize that the government, and specifically the minister, would not accept the democratic will of the INAN committee on the amendment to add a seat at the table for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. This is a national indigenous organization that represents over 800,000 urban indigenous people.
A second concern I have coming out of that committee debate is that there was one amendment we proposed that was disappointingly voted down by all the other parties, and that is the one I want to spend a few minutes talking about.
As many of my colleagues have talked about today, we put forward an amendment to add a seat on the board of directors for someone from an indigenous organization that is focused on economic reconciliation. With many options available from the FNFMB, or the First Nations Financial Management Board, NACCA and the CCAB, there are many great organizations doing good work in this sphere, and finding a well-established organization that historically has done great work would have been very easy. It would not have been a barrier to find somebody to sit at that table.
However, the lack of support for this amendment, it should be pointed out, came at the expense of not listening to multiple witnesses who clearly voiced their approval for the inclusion of an economic lens as part of this board. We did not advocate for that to be the only voice; it would have been only one voice at the table. To ignore these voices discredits the very process of reconciliation.
I have observed, over the last few years, Liberal and NDP MPs aggressively challenging indigenous leaders who have appeared as witnesses at the INAN committee to advocate for economic reconciliation. I often find myself questioning why. Why is there an aversion to even having this discussion? Something does not add up. What is it that they dislike about indigenous people being the masters of their own destiny? What is it that they dislike about the creation of a healthy, strong and vibrant community through prosperity? What is it that they dislike about using own-source revenue from true partnerships that address long-standing social issues? What is it that they dislike about leaving behind the destructive grip of poverty to offer hope and opportunity for future generations?
The sad answer is that they are more interested in political power and control. By imposing their own views rather than listening to indigenous voices, they create the same environment that indigenous people have lived under in this country for far too long.
It is time for a fundamental change to that approach. In fact, for those who are listening and watching closely, the change has already begun on the ground. Economic reconciliation plays such an important role in the overall discussion. Let me begin by sharing a few stories from my own riding in northern Saskatchewan.
As I returned home this September for this year's National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I spent time at Pelican Lake First Nation with Chief Peter Bill. As we arrived in the community, I was greeted by Chief Bill, a member of the RCMP and two of Pelican Lake's own community safety officers. With first nations policing being a very important topic the day after the tragedy at James Smith Cree Nation, I asked how their newly established community safety officer program was going. Chief Bill was happy to report to me that the community now has six full-time employees and its own fully equipped vehicles, and that they were in the process of hiring more officers. The RCMP officer explained to me how helpful the program had been in achieving safety in their community.
How did Pelican Lake first nation pay for this community safety officer program? They paid with their own sourced revenue. They invested profits to assist in the overall health and safety of their community instead of waiting for years for government and bureaucrats to plan and meet, develop frameworks, do benefit assessments and feasibility studies, or use the signing of MOUs for photo ops.
Later that day, I was at Flying Dust First Nation. After the formal speeches were done, we all left the hall and participated in a walk of solidarity with residential school survivors. On that walk, if I looked one way I could see a hockey rink that was built a few years ago and just beside that was their brand new 6,000-square foot sporting goods store and facility called “Snipe and Celly Sports Excellence”. If I looked the other way, out by the highway there was the brand new Petro-Canada gas station.
This was a visual reminder of what my friend Vice Chief Richard Derocher had mentioned earlier in the speeches when he spoke positively about reconciliation. He shared his wish that, when people were either visiting or driving through our communities, they would not be able to recognize when they were leaving Flying Dust First Nation and entering Meadow Lake or vice versa. How does that happen? It is by generating prosperity through economic development, which is something that Flying Dust First Nation and the Meadow Lake Tribal Council have a proud history of doing.
In northern Saskatchewan, there are many examples of these success stories. Whether it be Athabasca Basin Development group, the Des Nedhe Group of English River, Pinehouse Business North, Kitsaki Management Limited Partnership from Lac la Ronge, Sakitawak Development Corporation from the Métis village of Île-à-la-Crosse or the Peter Ballantyne Group of Companies, each is creating prosperity and capacity through the ownership and development of business opportunities. These opportunities give their people employment and a sense of pride.
These are groups on the ground that have already started the change. Their approach is the new way forward. It is their stories that the national council for reconciliation should also be reporting, along with many other things, and sharing with all Canadians.
Often Conservatives are labelled as only caring about the economy. Maybe that is our own fault because we do not explain the why. Let me try to do that. One of those community safety officers of Pelican Lake I talked about is named Dalton. I had the privilege of coaching Dalton when he played AA midget hockey in Meadow Lake. He was a sturdy, dependable defenceman who understood his role. He never missed a practice or a game. He was a player whom any coach would love to have on his team.
Dalton took those attributes and applied them to his first career choice to become a power engineer. He was supported in that choice by his mom and dad, and he would have had many options going forward in where he wanted to work, but something inside of him called him home to Pelican Lake. It was an opportunity to go home to get trained as a community safety officer and to be a leader in his own community, to be a driver of change and to set the example for the next generation.
I could not have been prouder of Dalton as I watched young kids come to him in his uniform and ask if he had any more tattoos. They felt comfortable around him. He provided them a sense of safety. He is a quality young man who is providing leadership within his community because the opportunity was there to take. That is the why. That is the outcome of economic reconciliation.
Conservatives promote and believe in economic reconciliation because it is the solution to eradicating poverty and with it the social ills that poverty creates. By putting control back in the hands of indigenous people, they get to begin to manage prosperity instead of poverty, and they get to take concrete steps toward healing through self-determination.
To conclude, I am proud of the work that our team did in making Bill C-29 a better version than when it originally came to the House in June. Many concerns that we expressed at second reading were addressed and have been improved. That is how we follow up words with action.
1687 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to this debate all day and this is the first time that I have gotten up to even ask a question. I cannot help but reflect on the fact that, time after time, every Conservative who gets up to speak to this links the concept of economic reconciliation to fossil fuel extraction. It is as though that is the only part of reconciliation that the Conservatives are interested in.
I have heard very few comments about anything other than this idea of economic reconciliation. I know the member is extremely proud of the fact that he thinks that the Conservatives think a lot about the economy, as he indicated in his speech, but is there any other part of this bill or, indeed, the reconciliation process that the member or any Conservative member would like to talk about other than economic reconciliation?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my hon. colleague was listening to my story about Dalton, the young man of Pelican Lake, but do members know what? That was not from the extraction of any oil and gas. Their businesses are from the forestry business in northern Saskatchewan.
I can tell members 20 other stories of communities in northern Saskatchewan that are not only about extraction. It is about opportunity that gives those young people hope for a better future.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Rivière Churchill for his speech.
I sit with him on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and I must say that his diligence, his tireless efforts—we see that there is work behind each of his interventions—and his openness make him a great colleague to work with.
I have a question for him because his work goes beyond what was said a few seconds ago, for example when it comes to including the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. It is an idea he could have debated.
I would like my colleague's thoughts on this and anything else he would like to add to improve the bill.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Bloc and I do work a lot together on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I hope I got the context of the question accurate in the translation.
Some of the things we did to improve the bill that we worked together on, which I believe was the crux of her question, was that we definitely improved some of the accountability measures within the act.
We heard the minister speak earlier about better governance, where, with regard to some of the authority that was granted to the minister in the original draft of the bill, we actually shared that responsibility with council members so that governance was better. It was not just in the hands of the minister.
That included the appointment process. That included many other things. For example, there was a number of areas in the bill where the language was very questionable in the requirement to create the protocol to provide information to the council so that it could do its great work.
Those are a couple of examples of the things we did to take away some of the fluffy and vague language to make this bill stronger, so that there would be greater accountability of the government to the council.
214 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 4:36:12 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Shefford is rising on a point of order.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but there is no interpretation.
14 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 4:36:23 p.m.
- Watch
Okay.
I am going to allow the member to respond to the question once again, in an abridged version, so the interpretation can happen.
The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this member has an abridged version, but I will try.
I am just going to briefly summarize a couple of the things that we improved in the bill. The first was accountability, through the governance model that was there.
The second thing we improved was to remove some questionable language, which was vague and left room for wiggle space. We want to improve accountability, and we removed some of that language to make the government more accountable to the national council for reconciliation.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that economic reconciliation is foundational. There was a situation not so long ago, with the northern gateway project, where every first nation was in support of the project, including 80% of elected members and chief counsel of the Wet'suwet'en, yet the Liberals found some spokespeople. There were some people against it, as one would expect in a democracy, but they basically nixed the entire project, which negatively impacted first nations people across British Columbia.
I wonder if the member could comment on the gap between what the Liberals say, how they are saying they were trying to help, and what is really happening on the ground.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the frustrations that we sometimes talk about in our circles, this gap between words and actions. We see that often. We can talk about the Auditor General report that was released this week.
Every time we ask a question of the government, the response is, “Look how much we have spent on this. We must have fixed it”, but the Auditor General said that the government is good at measuring outputs but not as good at measuring outcomes. Our party is about outcomes.
To the hon. member's specific example, I think the other thing that we always have to be aware of with those projects is that we have to respect the right of people along the way. It is their right to say yes and their right to say no, and we want to respect both of those.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as my party's critic for indigenous and northern affairs, I am pleased and proud to rise today to speak to Bill C‑29. Being critic for indigenous and northern affairs takes humility and perspective. Certainly the same goes for every portfolio, but I like to mention it.
I rise to summarize everything I heard from witnesses in committee and from people I have talked to about Bill C‑29. It is a bill that is important to indigenous peoples, meaning first nations, Inuit and Métis people. I want to talk about it as respectfully as possible, as I did during the committee study with my colleagues who are here today.
My thoughts are with the first nations living on the North Shore, the Innu and Naskapi. I send them my greetings. They know that I want to do my work very respectfully while keeping their wishes in mind. Even though sometimes first nations individuals and families do not all want exactly the same thing, there is a consensus, and that is what we tried to focus on when studying this bill in committee.
Having said that, I will divide my speech into several small components or several different subjects. These are the subjects that we discussed in committee and that, in my view, really stood out.
The purpose of the council that will be created by the bill will be to monitor the progress and advancement of work done as part of truth and reconciliation efforts. First, I would like to address something that was raised by several witnesses at the committee with regard to the word “reconciliation”. A few minutes ago, some of my colleagues spoke and tried to qualify the term “reconciliation”. They tried to categorize it and say that it must not be this or that.
I must say that, before all that, many indigenous people and members of indigenous communities said that they did not agree with the word “reconciliation”. If we stop and think about it even a little, we realize that that word basically implies that there is already some sort of conciliation and relationship, that something has already been created. However, we have been told that there was nothing at the start, that there was no “us”.
When we talk about reconciliation, we are starting off using a false term, one that I must point out is not even defined. We are working on a bill about truth and reconciliation, but the term “reconciliation” is not even accepted, because it is not considered the appropriate word for the situation and, on top of that, it has not even been defined. As legislators, when we study a bill, we also need to start from that point. At the very start, before we even begin, there is already a stumbling block, a problem, and we need to take that into account throughout our work. I spoke about the word “reconciliation”. That seems really simple, but it is the first principle.
I would like to move on to another subject, namely consultation.
I was surprised to learn that the Innu and Naskapi in my riding, along with members of other communities elsewhere, had no idea that consultations had taken place for this bill. They were not even aware that it existed. At committee, we learned that only a few communities had been consulted. Based on the information I have and my perception, which is not necessarily the truth, I get the impression that the consultations were hastily cobbled together. Clearly, not many people were consulted, but all the communities could have been systematically consulted to get a broader picture. That way, more people would have been consulted, not just those who are more informed than others or who have a network of contacts that allows them to be more aware of what is going on.
That came up in committee too. I will have more to say later about representativeness, because I see that as a very important part of the bill. I am not saying that the consultations were kept quiet, but not everybody was consulted. Only a very small percentage of people were consulted. Furthermore, it was not necessarily representative of what first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples want to see in the bill. For me, that was a concern. It was also a red flag about what else was in the bill, such as the issue of representativeness.
Actually, I want to talk about this right now. I do not mind skipping two or three points that I will come back to later, because this is definitely connected to the issue of representativeness.
The bill creates a board of directors. There was an interim board and a transitional committee, and now there will be a board of directors where positions are assigned to different entities, namely national organizations that represent indigenous people. The committee wanted to make the board more representative. We wanted to know why only three organizations were mentioned in the bill, when there are five that represent indigenous peoples nationally. That was a problem for us. I wanted to know why three were mentioned, when there are five. Not only did we not get a satisfactory answer, but we did not get one at all. We wanted those groups to be included.
People came to testify and said that they did not feel represented by such and such organization and that it was another organization that represented them.
Take the Native Women's Association of Canada, for example. Half the indigenous population is made up of women or people who identify as female. They should also be represented. They were not included. We often come back to the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women, and we are currently talking about the whole issue of violence, including sexual violence, but those were nowhere to be found in the bill either.
From the standpoint of equity and representativeness, I would be remiss if I did not say that this is part of the work the committee did. It was done as a team. Earlier, I heard comments about how people were antagonistic, but we really did have some very interesting discussions, including some with my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. There were some good discussions; it was remarkable.
There are other groups that were not represented. Although I am not an indigenous person myself—I am white—I do spend time with people, I have friends, I am aware and open, so I have absorbed some indigenous culture, including Innu-aimun and Innu-aitun in my riding.
Consider elders, for example. When we think about reconciliation and residential schools, elders were not automatically represented in the bill. That was the first thing that occurred to me. I did not stop there. I consulted people. Witnesses were also asked whether the bill ought to include elders, or rather survivors. They said that we were talking about elders, but that we should be calling them survivors of colonial practices and policies. This was also included in the bill.
I am talking about elders. I also talked about women. Basically, we wanted to ensure that membership on the board was not limited to certain groups selected by the minister himself from the outset.
This brings me to a point that I have not yet mentioned, but it is something that I do want to talk about: independence. I am not talking about Quebec independence. I am talking about the independence of the board. Independence is important to us.
Of course we need to start doing something, and we understand that the minister is involved, because this is his bill. Of course we want him to start the work, but we also want the board to eventually become autonomous and independent, with members appointed by the members of the transitional board. That is what we want, and we have talked about making the council more independent. The word “independent” was a key word in our discussions.
“Transparent” was another a key word. My Conservative Party colleague made a very worthwhile proposal that the Bloc Québécois completely agrees with, because we believe that the nations are nations unto themselves. The leaders are leaders of nations and should therefore be able to address their Quebec or Canadian government counterparts.
We wanted the Prime Minister himself to be required to respond to the report that will be tabled by the council every year. That was extremely important to most of us. There is talk of a nation-to-nation relationship, but such a relationship requires that the Prime Minister himself be held accountable for responding to the council's requests.
As we come to the end of the process, I must say that the opposition in particular has done a lot to strengthen Bill C‑29. It has improved representativeness by enabling more indigenous people and more indigenous groups from different backgrounds to add their own colours to the council.
Earlier, we talked about economic reconciliation. Yes, the Conservatives are talking about it, but some indigenous groups are also talking about it. We need to look at reconciliation from all angles. In short, sectoral committees may be struck at that time, and the council itself would be responsible. I really think we have improved the bill in terms of transparency, independence and representativeness.
I would really like everyone to keep in mind that everything can be improved. I hope that the voice of indigenous people will be heard through this new mechanism, which will have significant power because it will be able to monitor the government's progress.
Symbolism is something that comes up a lot. Previous speakers talked about it. Other people generally get the impression that actions vis-à-vis indigenous groups and individuals are merely symbolic. I said “other people”, because I was not thinking of myself as part of that group, but I could be part of it.
Symbolic gestures may cost money, but they do not cost the government anything. They do not have a negative impact on the government or force it to take more meaningful and nuanced action. Admitting wrongdoing is one thing, but making it right is another. Saying sorry is not enough.
All I want to say is that we really hope to see more action. We hope indigenous people themselves will get really involved in this. We hear talk of a nation-to-nation relationship on the one hand and “by indigenous people for indigenous people” on the other. They are the ones who will be able to assess, draw conclusions and make recommendations. That is what will enable us to go beyond symbolic gestures, which may confer a temporary halo upon the government but do not really change anything in the day-to-day lives of indigenous people. It may have an impact on those who are close by, but not on those who are far away.
I would like to invite all members of the House to visit my riding. Kawawachikamach, Matimekush‑Lac John or Unamen Shipu are far removed from statues and celebrations. I completely agree that we must celebrate indigenous cultures, but they face other difficulties. I used the word “difficulties”, but that is an understatement because these communities have major problems that must be resolved. Naturally, the council could speak to that.
In closing, I would like to again address my constituents to point out that even though it is quite simple, the testimony and the fact that consultations are held, and not just superficial consultations, really help improve bills.
I am thinking, for example, of Marjolaine Tshernish of the Institut Tshakapesh, an organization that promotes Innu culture across Quebec, but also in Labrador, because there are Innu communities there. She told me that it was difficult for her. She was concerned about what would happen next, for example with the council. For some, Innu is their first language, but for others living elsewhere, their first language may be French or English. She said that she did not yet have that information and that she was concerned that she did not have it. Innu is her language. She also speaks French, but she does not speak English. She said she wanted to ensure that there would be a francophone presence on the council.
I also worked to ensure a francophone presence on the council. For me, that is a big win in terms of representation. Some may say that I thought about French or francophone issues because I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, but that is not even the case. I must humbly admit that this idea did not come from me. It was the people at the Institut Tsakapesh who pointed it out to me. In short, it is thanks to them that we managed to amend the bill. I apologized to them for not thinking of it myself, but it is something that could have been brought to light through consultations with people and communities whose first, if not second, language is French.
I would like to close by telling you about a very witty Innu chief, Mr. Piétacho, from Ekuanitshit on the north shore. Mr. Piétacho has been a chief for over 30 years. I appreciated his quick wit when he appeared in committee. We all sometimes run into minor technical difficulties in committee. In short, he forgot to take himself off mute and, as soon as he began to speak, our chair told him that he could now speak. Chief Piétacho told the chair that he had been on mute for 500 years but not to worry, he was going to speak.
I hope that this council will give all indigenous people a chance to speak and that this will enable the government to respond and take real action.
2360 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 4:57:26 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Small Business; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Taxation.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member. I think there was great teamwork shown at the INAN committee. We worked positively and collaboratively. On this legislation, we did a lot of work together that we were all in agreement with.
A lot of the discussion we heard focused on the importance of languages, indigenous languages as well as the French language, in making sure that different people who speak different languages had the ability to speak those languages as part of the input they give to the national council for reconciliation.
Could the member speak about the importance of ensuring that not only the French language is protected, but indigenous languages are protected as well in the legislation, which we strengthened with the amendments?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I believe that he knows my love for indigenous languages. Aside from the emotional aspect, it is clear to me that language is part of our identity. Protecting indigenous languages is certainly as important as protecting French.
I would like to share a story. I read part of an Innu dictionary and quickly realized that it contained words that presented realities that I had a hard time understanding because I did not have access to the land, to this history with the land. A language is much more than a vehicle; it is an identity, it is the entire person. I know that in communities near where my colleague lives, there are young people relearning the Mi'kmaq language.
Naturally, I will always be an ally. I think we are all simply better for it.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from the Bloc at committee. We did get a lot of good work done.
My question is very simple. Bill C-29 originally came to the House without any concrete measurables, without anything to measure. We talked a lot about the fact that if we want to measure accountability, we must set some targets that determine success from failure.
Call to action 55 included a number of those quantifiable measurable items. Why does the member believe those measurable goals were excluded in the first place?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of questions when we see the first iteration of a bill. We always notice things that are missing. We often draw a comparison with the private sector. If a company wants to meet goals, it needs specific targets, deadlines and, in short, the means to achieve these goals. I did not get an answer to that question or several others, but I do believe it is necessary in order to get things done and meet goals.
As my colleague stated many times, what we want is not just to make some progress, but to make efforts to move forward. That word was taken out, incidentally. We got the word “efforts” taken out because it should already be understood. All we want is to make progress. I believe that having clear, specific goals to meet is absolutely necessary.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
